Tag: housing market

• Retiring on Lake Como

  For those of you thinking about summer in Europe right now, here is an interesting WSJ article about the real estate market in Lake Como, Italy. It’s behind a paywall, though, so here are two things that stood out to me.

  Firstly, the market is all about foreign buyers:

  The key driver of the Como market is, and has long been, foreign buyers. Prepandemic, Baysal estimated, non-Italian buyers were responsible for 70% to 80% of sales, with buyers from Russia, the U.K., Germany, and Switzerland leading the way. Today, foreign buyers still dominate. But while Russian and British buyers have gone quiet, said Baysal, North Americans stepped into their shoes last year, attracted by the relative strength of the dollar.

  More:

  Sara Zanotta, founder and managing director, Lakeside Real Estate, said most of her buyers are American, Swiss, Scandinavian and German vacation-home buyers. Armed with budgets of between $880,000 and $2.75 million, they are eager to buy a four- to five-bedroom villa, preferably historic, with a lake view and within walking distance of the water. Apartments in historic houses are also popular. “Outside space is a must,” she said. As a result of strong demand, Zanotta estimates that prices for this class of home have increased by around 20% between 2021 and 2022. 

  Secondly, there appears to still be some deals if you don’t need to be directly adjacent to George Clooney. The first home that is profiled in the article is a 1,000 sf two-bedroom condominium with a clear and direct view of the lake. It was purchased back in 2020-2021 for US$254,000.

  That feels very reasonable — $254 psf! The owner also purchased the property site unseen, visited it for the first time in 2021, and is somehow already approved for an Italian citizenship. (Doesn’t naturalization usually take 5 years of residency?)

  I can think of worse places to retire than Lake Como.

  2023.08.15

• The neutral rate and housing supply

  Below are two interesting excerpts from this recent Globe and Mail interview with Tiff Macklem (the current governor of the Bank of Canada of the former dean of the Rotman School).

  The first has to do with where he believes the “neutral rate” will be in the foreseeable future. He believes it will be higher than where it has been in the past:

  We have different models we use to estimate the neutral rate [the central bank’s estimate of where its policy rate would settle if the bank were neither trying to stimulate nor restraining the economy]. … Those models, based on the data we have, still suggest a neutral rate in the range of 2 to 3 per cent.

  When we look forward, and we look at a number of the forces, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is going to be higher than that … [rather] than lower than that. We don’t have that data yet. But there are a number of factors.

  More people are retiring. The labour market looks like it could be sort of structurally tighter going forward. Globalization has at least stalled, if not reversed. That could create more cost pressures. We’re going to need a lot of new investment in cleaner technologies if we’re going to meet our emissions-reduction targets. When I say ‘we,’ it’s the world – so that’s going to affect global real interest rates.

  So when you look forward, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is higher, not lower. And the message is that households, businesses, governments, the financial system, they need to be prepared for that possibility.

  The second is about his view on Canadian housing:

  The fundamental issue in the housing market, and this has been an issue in Canada for 10 years, at least, is structurally the demand for housing is growing faster than the supply. And so yes, interest rates go up, the housing market will slow. But it’s only going to slow so much because there is a sort of structural shortage of supply relative to demand.

  I think what you’re seeing is that with supply growing less than demand, the housing market has started to tick back up, housing prices have started to tick back up. That’s something we need to take into account in monetary policy. But we’re not targeting the housing market. We have one target: CPI inflation.

  These two forces are opposing ones. Higher rates create downward pressure on home prices. But, as we all know, a structural housing supply problem does the opposite. Where these two forces balance out is anybody’s guess. But as Tiff mentions above, his concern is not home prices; it is inflation.

  I am not an economist, but my view is that the broader real estate market is still going through its reset. There will be more pain and less housing supply overall in the short-term. Risk and leverage are still being unwound and that takes time. It also sucks.

  Because of this, I think if you ask most people today, they will likely tell you to wait: “We haven’t yet hit the bottom of the market.” This is likely true. But I have zero ability to time the bottom of a market. And at the same time, the future does feel a lot more knowable compared to a year ago.

  My philosophy is more akin to what I blogged about earlier in the week: If it’s cheap, if the thesis is sound, and if you have the ability to think long-term, then these downturns are when you want to buy. And that is how I’m starting to feel about things right now. This includes everything from real estate to NFTs.

  Disclaimer: This is not investment advice.

  2023.07.15

• The most expensive home in Brooklyn’s Dumbo neighborhood

  The most expensive home in Brooklyn’s Dumbo neighborhood is currently under contract and is expected to close in the next few months (at least according to the WSJ). It is a 4,270 square-foot penthouse, with a 500 square-foot terrace, that occupies the full top floor of Olympia Dumbo.

  The asking price / contract price is $17.5 million, which works out to be about USD 4,098 per square foot (or CAD 5,486 per square foot based on the exchange rate right now). Based on this price per pound, an equivalent 600 square foot suite would cost you about CAD $3.3 million.

  The land was purchased in 2018 for about $98 million. I don’t know what the total GFA of the building is, but it does have 76 residences, so that works out to about USD 1,289,473 per suite (or CAD 1,726,624 per suite), for the land cost alone.

  This should give you an indication of what the end suite pricing would need to be to make this development feasible, and likely also speaks to its average suite size. New York City tends to build much bigger suites. Certainly compared to here in Toronto.

  Also, notice that I didn’t say unit?

  2023.01.17

• What happened in 2022 and how I did on my predictions

  It has become tradition around here that at the end of each year I write down my predictions for the following one. And in 2022, I did that here. The overarching point of writing something like this down publicly is not necessarily to be right (because you can do that through obvious predictions). The point is to dedicate time to thinking (which is oftentimes hard to do throughout the year), to search for non-obvious things, and to generally be okay with being wrong. So I plan to do this again in the coming weeks for 2023.

  But first, let’s see how I did with my 2022 predictions:

  1. COVID: I argued that 2022 would be the year that the pandemic becomes endemic and it reaches a point where it no longer factors into decision making in the same way that it has since 2020. Some of you may disagree whether this is a good thing, but I would still say that this happened, at least in this part of the world. I started the year in lockdown here in Toronto and I ended the year having taken multiple overseas trips where testing was no longer required. (Right)
  2. Return to office: I was kind of close. I thought that the majority of people would be back in their offices by September. I didn’t say that hybrid/flex work was going to disappear, but that we would see a great return. That did happen, according to my super scientific Jimmy the Greek Reopening Index. But if you look at the latest swipe card data for the 10 largest US cities, average occupancy is hovering just below 50%, which is not a majority. (Wrong)
  3. Recreational/fringe housing: I felt very strongly that we would see a pullback in residential real estate this year, specifically recreational properties and properties in tertiary markets. This 100% happened, but I’ll be honest in that I was not thinking about the interest rate hikes that we saw. I just saw it as a pandemic bubble. I also thought that apartment rents would do very well and surpass pre-pandemic levels. This happened in many markets. (Right)
  4. Return of travel: Yup. (Right, but maybe too obvious?)
  5. Intensification of single-family home neighborhoods: This continued to be an important topic in 2022. Did we see some a tipping point-like moment, like I had predicted? I think it depends on the market, but here in Toronto we did see things like Bill 23, as well as additional efforts on the part of Mayor John Tory. (Right)
  6. Autonomous vehicles: Progress was made this year. You can now hail an autonomous taxi in places like San Francisco. But I also thought that this would be a fantastic year for Uber as the world reopened, and that they’d finally become profitable. As of Q3 of this year, that had not happened. (Wrong)
  7. Public transit and micromobility: I got the public transit ridership piece correct. I assumed that ridership levels would remain depressed. Perhaps an obvious one. But I also figured that e-scooters would be one of the main beneficiaries. While it is true that e-scooters remain very popular, particularly with French people, we did see ridership decline in the US, as the availability of cheap capital waned. (Mostly right)
  8. NFTs and augmented reality: There’s a lot happening in this digital world and I continue to be incredibly bullish. But we are certainly in a “crypto winter.” I also thought that Apple would announce something big related to augmented reality this year, but supposedly that has been pushed to next year. (Wrong)
  9. Climate change and carbon prices: I thought that the price of carbon on the EU’s Emissions Trading System would surge this year. It did not. Right now it’s looking like it’ll end up being fairly flat for the year. Of course, I also had no idea that Russia would do terrible terrible things to Ukraine, which has had dramatic impact on energy markets. (Wrong)
  10. More crypto (Ethereum, Bitcoin, and Solana): Well, I got this last one really wrong. ETH is down ~70% over the last year relative to the US dollar. I was not predicting a “crypto winter.” And I did not know that Sam Bankman-Fried was operating a weird cult-like ponzi scheme out of a penthouse in the Bahamas. None of this changes my views on crypto, but I was still wrong in 2022. (Wrong)

  Looks like I’m somewhere around 5/10.

  Stay tuned for my predictions for 2023. In the meantime, if any of you have predictions of your own, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below or on Twitter.

  2022.12.23

• Basketball and housing and football, oh my

  

  Three quick and unrelated things for today’s post:

  1.

  A handful of years ago, before the pandemic, Bullpen Consulting, Slate Asset Management, and AD HOC STUDIO started a somewhat irregular basketball meetup for Toronto’s development industry called City Builder Ball. It, of course, fell off the rails during the pandemic, but as of this month we are officially back at it! We played over the weekend and I can’t tell you how much fun it was to run around a gym for an hour and play basketball very poorly — so much fun. The next meetup will be in January and if you’d like to join, drop Ben Myers of Bullpen an email to get on the mailing list. It is open to all.

  2.

  A few months ago I wrote about a passion project that I am working on with a friend, called Unlyst. The idea is to see if there is a way to leverage the “wisdom of crowds” to determine the current market value of housing. And the way it works is that we feature a home on the website, people (or the crowd) get 14 days to input what they think it’s worth, and then we come up with something we are calling an “unlysted value.” There’s a lot of evidence of this sort of thing working exceptionally well for other markets, so we’re very curious to see if it can work for housing. If you’re interested in contributing your home and/or just seeing how it works, check out unlyst.com.

  3.

  World Cup Finals. What a game! A huge congratulations to Argentina and, of course, Messi. I should, however, come clean and say that I know virtually nothing about football, I don’t know why the field is so big, and that my overall impression of the game used to be mostly consistent with this Simpsons’ take (albeit with more sensationalized flopping by men with faux hawks). But since Canada qualified this year, I felt it was my duty to watch — at least some bits and until we got eliminated. And since the finals are the finals, and since I have an open crush on France, I figured this would also be a good game to watch. Turns out I was right. And now, I am fairly certain that it has turned me into a true fan — or at the very least a “I could watch a finals game every 4 years” kind of fan. Who knew that soccer, I mean football, could be so thrilling?

  Photo by Florian Wehde on Unsplash

  2022.12.18

• Opendoor wants to be a transaction layer for homes

  We have spoken a lot over the years about Opendoor. And for a period of time, iBuying seemed like a very good idea. Zillow go into it. Redfin got into it. Everybody was iBuying. But then this year everybody started losing money, mostly due to algorithms that could not contend with falling prices.

  It turns out that being a market maker for homes can be a tough business because there is a lag between when you buy the home and when you hope to sell it. And so right now, few people want to be an iBuyer. Zillow no longer does it. Redfin no longer does it. And Opendoor’s stock is, at the time of writing this post, down 87.19% YTD.

  It is pretty easy to be pessimistic on this space, and that pessimism may be warranted. Though it may not be. My thinking has always been as follows. The process of buying and selling a home will eventually move online. The industry is ripe for change and there is no debating that. The real question is: how the hell do you do it? Everybody, including me in my late 20s, has tried.

  Two-sided marketplaces are tricky, because you always run into a chicken-and-egg problem. If you don’t have buyers, no seller is going to bother with your real estate marketplace. And if you don’t have sellers (i.e. homes), no buyer is going to bother with your real estate marketplace. So generally speaking, the way to build a marketplace is to start with one side, somehow get them on and using the platform, and then open it up to the other side.

  And this is exactly what iBuying hopes to do. Today it is largely a tool for sellers. It is a tool that says, “I will give you instant liquidity for your home so you don’t have to worry or care about who might actually buy it.” This is, of course, convenient for sellers, which is why people have been using it; but it is capital intensive and, as we have seen this year, it transfers some risk to the iBuyer.

  In the world of Opendoor, they call this a first-party (1P) transaction. It is them buying directly from sellers. But the larger vision is for Opendoor to become more of a transaction layer and instead just facilitate third-party (3P) transactions. This is currently being done through Opendoor Exclusives and the objective here is to match buyers and sellers directly, so that Opendoor can avoid taking on the risk of actually owning homes for a period of time.

  Will this work? I don’t really know. But I do think it is exciting and I do think it is the way to think about what Opendoor is ultimately trying to do with their business.

  Reminder: I am long $OPEN

  2022.11.23

• Super-prime home sales in New York and London

  Here’s what I can tell you this morning: Real estate development is a bit more fun when you don’t have to constantly worry about supply-chain issues, access to labor, high inflation, and regularly increasing interest rates. That said, if you just want to buy a super-prime property in one of the world’s preeminent global cities, things seem to be just fine:

  

  

  According to FT, both New York and London have continued to see a rise in super-prime sales this year and both have seen more of these sales in the first 8 months of 2022 compared to all of 2019 (before the pandemic). Note: These charts are showing home sales greater than US$10 million and greater than £5 million, respectively.

  On top of this, many or most of these buyers are, apparently, still able to access financing at LTVs of 100% (i.e. no money down). For what it’s worth, there is a London mortgage broker quoted in the article saying that he has arranged more 100% mortgages this year than in his entire 20-year career. Turns out that the best way to ensure access to debt is to not need it in the first place.

  Charts: FT

  2022.09.24

• Market making for houses

  Matt Levine’s latest Money Stuff column does a good job explaining why a lot of smart people are trying to figure out a market-making model for homes (see companies such as Opendoor):

  People want to apply the market-making model to homes. This makes sense. Buying or selling a home is a long slow uncertain annoying process. The value of immediacy is high, especially for a seller. If you decide to sell your house and go to a website and spend 10 minutes filling out a form and then someone wires you cash for the value of your house, that is much much much better than hiring a broker and listing the house and holding open houses and so forth. You’d be willing to pay a market maker a lot for that immediacy. (By selling your house to the market maker at a discount.) And if the market maker is good at acquiring houses, then it will have a lot of inventory, which will make it a good seller of houses. If you want to buy a house, you will naturally go to the market maker’s website, because it’s where the houses are.

  Levine also explains why a market-making model is that much more difficult for homes compared to things like stocks. In a slowing/slumping housing market, it’s pretty easy to lose money as a market maker. (That is, unless you can somehow accurately predict that a slump is coming.)

  Last month, Opendoor lost money on 42% of its home transactions. This is a result of them buying homes from people when prices were X and then selling these homes many months later when prices were less than X.

  However, I’m not so sure that this has to be an existential problem. Opendoor’s primary value proposition is instant liquidity for homeowners. And this value proposition is at its strongest when the market is in fact slumping. Because the alternative — selling with a broker — is less attractive.

  So the current environment may eventually turn out to be a boon for Opendoor. Of course, we won’t know for a number of months.

  Full disclosure: I am long $OPEN. And yes, it is painful right now.

  2022.09.20

• Redfin experiment shows how home buyers react to flood-risk data

  This is a fascinating little experiment:

  From Oct. 12, 2020 to Jan. 3, 2021, Redfin ran an experiment on 17.5 million of its users across the US. As prospective homebuyers entered the site, Redfin assigned them randomly to either a group that was shown flood-risk information on each property or a group that was not.

  The flood-risk scores came from First Street Foundation, a climate and technology nonprofit that works to make climate hazards more transparent to the public. In June 2020, First Street published the first public maps that revealed flood risk for every home and property in the contiguous US. 

  First Street scores properties on a scale of 1 to 10 based on the likelihood that they will flood in the next 30 years (which is assumed to be a typical mortgage term). A score of 1 means the property has “minimal” risk and a score between 9-10 is considered “extreme” risk.

  So what happens once you start showing people flood-risk information? They, not surprisingly, start systematically looking for safer properties. After one week of users being exposed to this new information, prospective buyers who were previously looking at “extreme” homes started looking at homes that were about 7% safer.

  After 9 weeks, these same “extreme” home buyers were looking at properties that were about 25% less risky. And for some buyers, in particular those working with a Redfin agent or partner, their flood-risk tolerance dropped by over 50%. (Embedded in this data might be a sales pitch for working with a knowledgeable Redfin agent or partner).

  Also interesting is the fact that below “severe” flood risk (a score between 7-8), there was very little change in behavior. “Major” flood risk, it would seem, isn’t all that concerning to most buyers. It needs to be “severe”. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that people will in fact make behavioral changes when presented with clear climate-risk data.

  2022.09.12

• Income vs. wealth in California’s housing market

  Here is a chart from MetroSight that compares housing tenure in California in 2000 and then between 2015-2019:

  

  Two things you might notice immediately are that the number of renter-occupied households has generally increased and that the number of owner-occupied households without a mortgage (i.e. they own their home free and clear) has also increased for every age category except for those 65 or older.

  MetroSight uses this data to argue that a new “wealth-related phenomenon is emerging” in California. Instead of the housing market being largely driven by income (that is, I make this much per year and I can afford this much house), it is being driven by accumulated wealth.

  The possible explanations for this are as follows:

  • The share of renter-occupied households is increasing because people increasingly can’t afford to buy
  • The share of owner-occupied houses with a mortgage is decreasing because less people can afford to buy given California’s price-to-income ratios
  • The share of owner-occupied houses without a mortgage is increasing because people are increasingly inheriting homes or getting gifted cash from their families

  Consider that the share of owner-occupied houses without a mortgage even increased for the 18-24 age category. Unless you’re the next Zuckerberg (who was a billionaire at age 23), this is pretty challenging to do without some kind of assistance, especially in a place like California.

  This outcome also provides a possible explanation for why the over 65 age category is the only segment that has seen a reduction in free and clear ownership. It is because they are transferring their wealth to the next generation so that they too can obtain homeownership.

  Chart: MetroSight

  2022.08.14